CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Judgment - Grounds of judgment - No grounds of judgment written by trial judge to justify amendments to charges at close of prosecution's case - No written grounds provided in respect of trial judge's findings that prima facie case established and defence ought to be called - Whether any prejudice occasioned to accused persons - Whether any statutory provision requiring trial judge to prepare grounds of judgment for finding prima facie case established

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Trial de novo - Change of judge during hearing - Whether previous judge retained jurisdiction in matter - Whether previous judge may continue and complete case that was partly heard - Whether succeeding judge has discretion to either hear case de novo or to continue from point where it had been left by previous judge - Whether directive given by Chief Judge to succeeding judge to continue part heard case purely an administrative directive - Whether directive could fetter discretion of succeeding judge - Whether directive had prejudiced accused persons - Whether in breach of s. 261 of Criminal Procedure Code

EVIDENCE: Corroboration - Sexual offence - Rape - Testimony of expert on condition of hymen - Testimony of witness at scene of crime - Whether evidence of complainant must be corroborated - Whether evidence of expert witness consistent with testimony of victim - Whether testimony of witness at scene of crime on the day of incident can corroborate testimony of victim

EVIDENCE: Corroboration - Sexual offence - Rape - Testimony of expert on condition of hymen - Testimony of witness at scene of crime - Whether evidence of complainant must be corroborated - Whether evidence of expert witness consistent with testimony of victim - Whether testimony of witness at scene of crime on the day of incident can corroborate testimony of victim

COMPANY LAW: Director - Breach of fiduciary duties - Misappropriation of funds - Whether director had breached his fiduciary duties by using company funds for his personal benefit - Whether director misused his position as a director and cheque signatory of company to effect transfer of company funds into his personal bank account

COMPANY LAW: Director - Remuneration - Entitlement to remuneration or perks by director - Whether mere holding of office of director entitled a director to remuneration

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Declaration - Application for - Restitution of monies paid and received by director and breach of fiduciary duties - Misappropriation of company funds - Action to recover monies from former director

TORT: Defamation - Libel - Defamatory statement in social media - Allegation that a man disguised himself under a female name - Posting statement together with doctored coloured photograph - Whether statement made capable to lower plaintiff in estimation of right-thinking men - Whether statement exposed plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule or caused him to be shunned or avoided - Whether statement in natural and ordinary meaning referred to plaintiff as a transgender - Whether defendant was malicious in posting and publishing defamatory statement

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 321 - Withdrawal from prosecution - Role of Prosecutor and duty of court granting consent - How to be exercised - Held, it is the obligation of the Public Prosecutor to state what material he has considered - It has to be set out in brief - Public Prosecutor cannot act like the post office on behalf of the State Government, he is required to act in good faith, peruse materials on record and form an independent opinion that withdrawal of the case would really subserve public interest - An order of the Government on the Public Prosecutor in this regard is not binding - A court while giving consent under S. 321 is required to exercise its judicial discretion, which is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner - Court must consider the material on record to see that the application had been filed in good faith and it is in interests of the public and justiceBairam Muralidhar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh
(Dipak Misra, Pinaki Chandra Ghose JJ) [2015] 7 CLJ 993 [SC India]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 321 - Withdrawal of prosecution - Corruption case - Public Prosecutor seeking withdrawal of prosecution only on the ground that State Government has issued order to withdraw the prosecution - Non-application of independent mind by Public Prosecutor - Impermissibility - Held, Special Judge and High Court rightly declined to grant consent - Application must indicate perusal of the materials by stating what are the materials Prosecutor has perused, may be in brief, and whether such withdrawal of prosecution would serve public interest and how he has formed his independent opinion - Here Public Prosecutor has been totally guided by order of the Government and really not applied his mind to facts of the case - Noteworthy that State Government had granted sanction and anti-Corruption Bureau also found no justification for the withdrawal - Regard being had to gravity of the offence and the impact on public life apart from the nature of application filed by the Public Prosecutor, view expressed by trial Judge and High Court, upheld - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2)Bairam Muralidhar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh
(Dipak Misra, Pinaki Chandra Ghose JJ) [2015] 7 CLJ 993 [SC India]

There are a growing number of employees who are unaware that they are eligible to take employee insurance to cover and protect themselves should anything untoward happen to them at work. Under the Employees' Social Security Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'ESSA'), both the Employer and the Employee are expected under the law to make monthly contributions based on their monthly earnings to the Board and in return, the Board undertakes to protect them financially if anything happens to them in the course of their employment. The authors, in this paper, explain this area to the layman so they can assert their rights and get what they rightfully deserve in the event of a calamity befalling them thereby rendering them unable to work either indefinitely or permanently.

Compulsory Contributions

Section 4[1] of the Act states that it is a requirement under this Act that any industry that falls within the subject matter of the Act shall be registered with the Social Security Organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘SOCSO’), and by virtue of s. 5[2] shall ensure that all its employees are insured in the manner provided by the Act. Other than that, the Act further elaborates that each employer shall be able to make contribution for their employees under a few types of categories that were introduced by SOCSO. Section 6[3] on the other hand, shows that the necessary contributions that are made according to the Act can be either one of these two groups - either the employer who acts on behalf of the employee or the employee who decides to act on his or her own.

EXPERT EVIDENCE THE FUTURE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS*byTHE RIGHT HON THE LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD

Introduction

1. With all of the problems and issues currently facing the criminal bar, some of you are no doubt wondering why I have decided to speak to you this evening about expert evidence and particularly forensic science. There are three reasons: first there is clearly the issue of social mobility and the profession; that is an acute issue and one which was central to the work of Michael Kalisher. The work of the Kalisher Trust has already done so much and the profession is now realistically facing up to the problems caused by the debts incurred by law students and the help that needs to go to those that choose a career in publicly funded work; radical solutions are needed, but it must be for the profession and the Inns first to formulate and publish their proposals. Second, the issue of remuneration for publicly funded work and the future of the independent bar in publicly funded work. This is also of fundamental importance, but it is not something I can say much new about at present. I have said as much as I can until there are more developments, particularly the report of Geoffrey Rivlin QC. Third, there is a risk for any profession that in focussing its attention primarily on issues that are central to its ability to function as a profession in fact open to all, however important, other longer term issues about which the profession ought to be concerned are overlooked.

2. Why is forensic science a relevant and topical subject for this evening’s lecture? First, as a brief view of the past shows, we have always faced problems. Second, there are current problems. Third, we have had excellent proposals for reform from the Law Commission which have been largely implemented in a novel way. Fourth, embedding the reforms and addressing other problems is important for overall public confidence in criminal justice. It will show the public why justice matters at a time when there is a risk that justice will be overlooked as there are so many other calls on the public purse.

. . .

* The Right Hon The Lord Thomas Of Cwmgiedd, Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, The 2014 Criminal Bar Association Kalisher Lecture (14 October 2014). Published with kind permission of the Judicial Communications Office, Judiciary of England and Wales https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/announcements/ 2014-kalisher-lecture-on-the-future-of-forensic-science-in-criminal-trials-by-the-lord-chief-justice/).